Talmud for Gittin 1:6

הָאוֹמֵר, תֵּן גֵּט זֶה לְאִשְׁתִּי וּשְׁטָר שִׁחְרוּר זֶה לְעַבְדִּי, אִם רָצָה לַחֲזֹר בִּשְׁנֵיהֶן, יַחֲזֹר, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, בְּגִטֵּי נָשִׁים, אֲבָל לֹא בְשִׁחְרוּרֵי עֲבָדִים, לְפִי שֶׁזָּכִין לָאָדָם שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו וְאֵין חָבִין לוֹ אֶלָּא בְּפָנָיו. שֶׁאִם יִרְצֶה שֶׁלֹּא לָזוּן אֶת עַבְדּוֹ, רַשַּׁאי. וְשֶׁלֹּא לָזוּן אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ, אֵינוֹ רַשָּׁאי. אָמַר לָהֶם, וַהֲרֵי הוּא פוֹסֵל אֶת עַבְדּוֹ מִן הַתְּרוּמָה כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהוּא פוֹסֵל אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא קִנְיָנוֹ. הָאוֹמֵר, תְּנוּ גֵט זֶה לְאִשְׁתִּי, וּשְׁטָר שִׁחְרוּר זֶה לְעַבְדִּי, וּמֵת, לֹא יִתְּנוּ לְאַחַר מִיתָה. תְּנוּ מָנֶה לְאִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי, וּמֵת, יִתְּנוּ לְאַחַר מִיתָה:

If one says: Give this get to my wife, or this writ of manumission to my bondsman, if he wishes to retract with both, [before they reach the hand of the woman or of the bondsman], he may do so [and the messenger may not acquire the writ on their behalf; for it is a liability to them in that it deprives them of their sustenance.] These are the words of R. Meir. The sages say: [He may retract] with the gittin of women, but not with the manumissions of bondsmen. [And the halachah is in accordance with the sages.] For a man is accorded benefit even not in his presence, but liability is imposed upon him only in his presence. For if he wished not to feed his bondsman, he could do so, [so that when he frees him he does not cause him to lose his sustenance]; but he is not permitted not to feed his wife, [so that when he divorces her, he causes her to lose her sustenance.] He (R. Meir) said to them: But he disqualifies his bondsman from terumah, just as he disqualifies his wife! They answered: That is because he is his acquisition. [That is, the reason the bondsman of a Cohein eats terumah is that he is his acquisition — just as the beast of a Cohein eats terumah vetch, and there is no ascendancy in this. Therefore, if he frees him, even though he disqualifies him from eating terumah, this is no liability to the bondsman.] If one says: Give this get to my wife, or (give) this writ of manumission to my bondsman, and he died, they are not to be given after his death. [For it is not a get until it reaches her hand, and when it reaches her hand, he is dead; and there is no get after death. And with the writ of manumission, too, when it reaches his (the bondsman's) hand, he (the owner) is dead and has no authority over him.] (If one says:) Give a manah to this and this man, and he dies, it is to be given after his death [even if he did not say: "this manah," for the words of a shechiv mera (one at the point of death) are as "written and given"].

Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot

Rav said, if a dying person said, do not bury me, he is buried as a charge on public charity. Rebbi Immi asked, how could one think that others are provided for by his property and he is buried as a charge on public charity¹¹This is the unanimous opinion of the Babli.? The Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “Her heirs, the heirs of her ketubah, are obligated to bury her.¹²This is an obligation independent of the wishes of the deceased.” Explain it, if they inherited real estate¹³Since usually a ketubah is payable in real estate.. As it was stated¹⁴A similar text in Tosephta 9:3.: “If he left male and female slaves, mortgages, and movables, anybody¹⁵Anybody with a claim sustainable in court, the widow for her ketubah or a creditor. who takes them first acquires them and¹⁶If nothing is left of his estate. he shall be buried by public charity.” Because he took it first¹⁷If the estate already had disappeared before the burial.. Therefore, if he did not take it first one removes from his hand. Explain it, if he said, bury me¹⁸If the deceased had requested a burial before he died, the burial expenses are privileged.. As Rebbi Yose said in the name of the rabbis: If a dead person was buried who had not said “bury me”, even though others came and took [of his property] one removes from their hands. If they took real estate. In fact, what you say, one removes from their hands, if they took real estate. But if they took movables, one does not remove from their hands, if it was a loan by witnesses¹⁹In this case, time is of the essence since any one of the witnesses could die anytime. But real estate can be foreclosed only by a regular court procedure.. But for a documented loan, whether they took real estate or movables one does not²⁰It seems that this is a scribal error and one should read: מוציאין “one does remove”. Since the claim is documented, there is no need for the creditor to resort to self-help. remove from their hands. For²¹This is an unnecessary word; R. Abba explains general principles about the legal standing of death-bed requests. Rebbi Abba, the son of Rav Huna, said²²In the Babli (Baba batra 152a, 175a; Giṭṭin 13a, 15a) this is an undisputed statement of Rav Naḥman.: They made the words of a bedridden person equal to those of a healthy person who wrote and delivered²³The legal forms of a valid gift.. But only if he died from that illness, not if he recovered. And if he was explicit and said, give field X to Y. If he said, give field X to Y²⁴It seems that one has to read: Give field X to Y and Z. It is understood that each one gets half a field but the method of subdivision of the field was not indicated.? Is it as if he was explicit or only if he said, the Northern half, the Southern half?²⁵No answer is given since it is clear that the bequest cannot be enforced against the legal heirs; the burden of proof being on the claimants, who would have to prove in court that the method of division is that intended by the donor; this is impossible after the latter’s death. Rebbi Yudan asked: If he said, burn me by pagan rites and give half of field X to Y. Since they do not burn, do they give?²⁶Since the first half of the request is clearly illegal, can the second half be legal? Rebbi Ḥaggai asked: A sick person who said, my daughters shall be supported. Would the daughters not be supported anyway²⁷Since daughters’ right to sustenance is a standard condition of the ketubah (Mishnah 4:11), what did the mention of the daughters add to their rights?? No, it is necessary, for otherwise would they be supported from pledged real estate or would they be supported from movables²⁸At places where the ketubah could be taken only in real estate, the daughters could be supported only by real estate.? Rebbi Yudan [ ]²⁹The words בָּרַח לְנוֹי “he fled to beauty” do not make sense here. there came a case before Rebbi Yose about a bedridden person who had said, my documents shall be given to X. He said to him, the bedridden can only transfer property which is acquired either by a document or by taking hold³⁰By bodily possession.. But these are acquired by a document and by taking hold. As it was stated³¹Tosephta Qiddušin 1:7.: “A ship is acquired by taking hold in the opinion of everybody. Rebbi Nathan says a ship and documents are acquired by a document and by taking hold. ³²This last sentence is not in the Tosephta or in the Babli (Baba batra76a); R. Yose’s ruling is rejected by Rav Naḥman (Note 22) who validates the transfer of documents by death-bed declaration. If he wrote and did not take hold, or took hold without writing [a transfer document] he did not do anything unless he both writes and takes hold.”

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Previous Verse Full Chapter Next Verse